1.Title, director and release year?
- Darwin’s Nightmare, Hubert Sauper, 2004-2005
2.What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
- New fish introduced to Lake then ate smaller fish → became dominant species
- New fish was good for economy → more people are employed because of the new source of fish
- Exportation of fish runs the nation; planes from other countries bring weapons and take fish, leaving the civilians in violence and starvation
3.What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
- Several sustainability problems, including economic, political, ecological, and organizational, are made identified in this film. For instance, the overfishing and exploitation of the lake are ecological sustainability problems because the lake can/will experience eutrophication, in which case the entire economy of the nation would collapse due to unlivable conditions of the lake.
- This ecological problem leads directly into the economic and political sustainability problems portrayed into the film, such as lack of regulation, mass poverty, etc. The fact that the majority of the Tanzanian economy relies on the lake and the fish within it is a problem in that the political restraints for fishing in the lack are nonexistent, which then causes overfishing and complete extermination of their remaining resources (as their farmland has already been exploited as well).
- Another sustainability problem drawn out is education. The children in Tanzania are brought up aspiring to be a part of the system that has left them orphans and homeless, and their nation in hunger and war.
4.What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
- The fact that the film was not narrated irritated me at first because I was unsure of what I was supposed to be looking at. Once the interviews began and a storyline formed, I understood why the narration was nonexistent and it truly helped create a documentary in which audiences could truly feel sympathetic toward the characters and guilty for not taking action.
5.What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
- At first I found it difficult to get engaged with the film because I was frustrated by the lack of background provided (like not knowing the cause of the problems). Once I began to understand the argument the film was providing, I found myself questioning, ‘Well how did things come to be that way?’ Overall, the only complaints I have are of unanswered questions and ways in which I could help the situation.
6.What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
- I was left asking questions about how things used to be in Tanzania and how it progressed to be what the film portrayed. I was also left with questions such as: What type of research is the research center doing? Do the civilians understand that they are being cheated out of what is rightfully theirs? Why hasn’t the government stepped in? How can I help? etc
7.What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
- I think the film is addressed to anyone who will listen. Whether you are a part of the system (or a similar system) that destroys the lives of innocent civilians or just an average person living halfway around the world, this film is made to change our perspectives and think twice about the way we lead our daily lives compared to the way others are forced to.
- Since the film is not narrated, the audience is provided a lot of room for imagination to create their own storyline and interpret the images as they see fit, while still coming out with the same overall message.
- The way in which the documentary is filmed, the audiences are put in the middle of what is happening, forming a bond with those actually experiencing it. Therefore, I do believe that the film is likely to change the way viewers see environmental problems and act on making a difference, big or small.
8.What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
- The film suggests several points of intervention. For one, intervening politically by creating restraints on the amount of fishing done in the lake, while still providing economic profit. Also, government intervention to stop the violence in the country and importation of weaponry. Perhaps educational intervention, to teach the natives about their rights and/or disease prevention, the dangers of drugs, new skills to develop the job market, etc.
9.What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
- Having studied environmental science previously, I fully understand the dangers of dominant species and lake eutrophication; however, I’m sure there are audiences who do not have knowledge of these issues, so perhaps a few screens explaining (in text) what they are and why they are detrimental to the environment (i.e. dictionary definitions, images, etc).
10.Why has this film received so many honors? (see http://www.darwinsnightmare.com/darwin/html/startset.htm)?
- The film is very engaging because it forces you to make your own conclusions based on images and local encounters, keeping it honest and open to your own judgment. It shows the utter exploitation of the global trade system, in regards to cheap labor, and the struggles third world country citizens my sustain in order to survive.
11.Why, also, has the film been at the center of controversy? See the section on "criticism", and this description of how the film was received when screened for World Bank workers.
- Government didn’t want negative opinions of the fish industry since it was profiting them. Film explicitly portrays the neglect on the part of the government as far as taking proper care of their people’s livelihood in terms of health, sanitation, and overall well-being (including economic).
- People thought the film was biased and simply explained yet another problem in Africa. Some audiences are tired of Africa being portrayed as being in peril.
12.How would you characterize the film's style and strategy for reaching its viewers? The film's website may help you think about this; see the "press reviews" posted there in particular.
- The film makes you care about the people in it. It does not dictate the point to you, instead it lets you figure it out for yourself through various honest images and interviews.
13.What ethical issues does the film draw to the surface?
- Some ethical issues drawn on in the film include exploitation (of people, power, and resources), as well as morality and the idea of ‘ignorance is bliss’. A main component of the film is the exploitation of the lake and the civilians who work in it. The government utilizes the lakes’ harvest as a means to trade weapons, which I assume are used against civilians like those that collected the harvest. The film also portrays several people (pilots for example) who turn a blind eye and avoid confronting or speaking up against a clearly unjust situation. Lastly, the ethical issue of morality in economics, such as the value of life vs. value of a dollar.
14.Where would you start trying to fix the problems conveyed in the film?
- My initial thought would be to place a cap on fish exports so the locals can eat; however, if the World Trade Organization (WTO) does not allow certain caps on exports due to potential effects on global trade, then I would suggest the government demand permission to place the cap or demand aid in the form of food for their people. It is clear that free trade agreements exploit third-world countries who participate in them.
- If I were trying to help the situation from halfway around the world, I would suggest a labeling campaign that describes the origin of products. For example, in the instance of the Nile perch fish, the label could say how many miles has the fish travelled to reach its destination and what that means as far as creating a carbon footprint.
1. Title, director and release year?
- Darwin’s Nightmare, Hubert Sauper, 2004-2005
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
- New fish introduced to Lake then ate smaller fish → became dominant species
- New fish was good for economy → more people are employed because of the new source of fish
- Exportation of fish runs the nation; planes from other countries bring weapons and take fish, leaving the civilians in violence and starvation
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
- Several sustainability problems, including economic, political, ecological, and organizational, are made identified in this film. For instance, the overfishing and exploitation of the lake are ecological sustainability problems because the lake can/will experience eutrophication, in which case the entire economy of the nation would collapse due to unlivable conditions of the lake.
- This ecological problem leads directly into the economic and political sustainability problems portrayed into the film, such as lack of regulation, mass poverty, etc. The fact that the majority of the Tanzanian economy relies on the lake and the fish within it is a problem in that the political restraints for fishing in the lack are nonexistent, which then causes overfishing and complete extermination of their remaining resources (as their farmland has already been exploited as well).
- Another sustainability problem drawn out is education. The children in Tanzania are brought up aspiring to be a part of the system that has left them orphans and homeless, and their nation in hunger and war.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
- The fact that the film was not narrated irritated me at first because I was unsure of what I was supposed to be looking at. Once the interviews began and a storyline formed, I understood why the narration was nonexistent and it truly helped create a documentary in which audiences could truly feel sympathetic toward the characters and guilty for not taking action.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
- At first I found it difficult to get engaged with the film because I was frustrated by the lack of background provided (like not knowing the cause of the problems). Once I began to understand the argument the film was providing, I found myself questioning, ‘Well how did things come to be that way?’ Overall, the only complaints I have are of unanswered questions and ways in which I could help the situation.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
- I was left asking questions about how things used to be in Tanzania and how it progressed to be what the film portrayed. I was also left with questions such as: What type of research is the research center doing? Do the civilians understand that they are being cheated out of what is rightfully theirs? Why hasn’t the government stepped in? How can I help? etc
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
- I think the film is addressed to anyone who will listen. Whether you are a part of the system (or a similar system) that destroys the lives of innocent civilians or just an average person living halfway around the world, this film is made to change our perspectives and think twice about the way we lead our daily lives compared to the way others are forced to.
- Since the film is not narrated, the audience is provided a lot of room for imagination to create their own storyline and interpret the images as they see fit, while still coming out with the same overall message.
- The way in which the documentary is filmed, the audiences are put in the middle of what is happening, forming a bond with those actually experiencing it. Therefore, I do believe that the film is likely to change the way viewers see environmental problems and act on making a difference, big or small.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
- The film suggests several points of intervention. For one, intervening politically by creating restraints on the amount of fishing done in the lake, while still providing economic profit. Also, government intervention to stop the violence in the country and importation of weaponry. Perhaps educational intervention, to teach the natives about their rights and/or disease prevention, the dangers of drugs, new skills to develop the job market, etc.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
- Having studied environmental science previously, I fully understand the dangers of dominant species and lake eutrophication; however, I’m sure there are audiences who do not have knowledge of these issues, so perhaps a few screens explaining (in text) what they are and why they are detrimental to the environment (i.e. dictionary definitions, images, etc).
10. Why has this film received so many honors? (see http://www.darwinsnightmare.com/darwin/html/startset.htm )?
- The film is very engaging because it forces you to make your own conclusions based on images and local encounters, keeping it honest and open to your own judgment. It shows the utter exploitation of the global trade system, in regards to cheap labor, and the struggles third world country citizens my sustain in order to survive.
11. Why, also, has the film been at the center of controversy? See the section on "criticism", and this description of how the film was received when screened for World Bank workers.
- Government didn’t want negative opinions of the fish industry since it was profiting them. Film explicitly portrays the neglect on the part of the government as far as taking proper care of their people’s livelihood in terms of health, sanitation, and overall well-being (including economic).
- People thought the film was biased and simply explained yet another problem in Africa. Some audiences are tired of Africa being portrayed as being in peril.
12. How would you characterize the film's style and strategy for reaching its viewers? The film's website may help you think about this; see the "press reviews" posted there in particular.
- The film makes you care about the people in it. It does not dictate the point to you, instead it lets you figure it out for yourself through various honest images and interviews.
13. What ethical issues does the film draw to the surface?
- Some ethical issues drawn on in the film include exploitation (of people, power, and resources), as well as morality and the idea of ‘ignorance is bliss’. A main component of the film is the exploitation of the lake and the civilians who work in it. The government utilizes the lakes’ harvest as a means to trade weapons, which I assume are used against civilians like those that collected the harvest. The film also portrays several people (pilots for example) who turn a blind eye and avoid confronting or speaking up against a clearly unjust situation. Lastly, the ethical issue of morality in economics, such as the value of life vs. value of a dollar.
14. Where would you start trying to fix the problems conveyed in the film?
- My initial thought would be to place a cap on fish exports so the locals can eat; however, if the World Trade Organization (WTO) does not allow certain caps on exports due to potential effects on global trade, then I would suggest the government demand permission to place the cap or demand aid in the form of food for their people. It is clear that free trade agreements exploit third-world countries who participate in them.
- If I were trying to help the situation from halfway around the world, I would suggest a labeling campaign that describes the origin of products. For example, in the instance of the Nile perch fish, the label could say how many miles has the fish travelled to reach its destination and what that means as far as creating a carbon footprint.
[Posted February 2, 2010]